Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To have this opinion of SIL.

274 replies

Justme23 · 10/08/2012 11:41

Probably a terrible whiny thread actually but I need a vent.

The back story is that since I have known SIL2 she has wanted to get pregnant.

Her ex left her because she stopped her contraception without telling him (which in my opinion is abhorrent). He was always very vocal that he wasn't ready for a baby and neither was she, because of their age and situation. (SIL being 19 and VERY immature and him being 21 and studying furiously for a law degree, both living at respective maternal homes). He was broken up when he found out she was lying and took it very hard, poor kid.

Anyway she finally conceived after a string of one night stands and an on off thing with her ex. She told another guy that the baby was his for the last six months of her pg but when baby was born it was clear that her ex is the father.

She told him (via text) and he rang her to ask what she wanted from him. She said nothing at all (very dramatic scene, telling him he can't go anywhere near the baby, she is a "strong" woman, blah blah.

And typically after 14 months she's realising it's not as easy as she thought it was, mainly down to her doting mummy refusing to sponsor her anymore after she threw a tantrum and smashed up her room. (over a broken phone no less)

She is the epitome of a Jeremy Kyle brat. Out every weekend, no job, sees less of her child than I do mine and I have a full time 12 hours a day job!

So she rings her ex, who is doing brilliantly at his degree and job, has got a lovely girlfriend and money etc, and demands money from him.

He said no... That if she will allow him some time to meet the baby and get to know her then he will provide for THE CHILD.

And I agree with him..? So does DP.

Is it that unreasonable?

OP posts:
bogeyface · 10/08/2012 21:48

But the point on that thread is that they are married and they had made contraceptive decisions together. She had no reason to not trust him, and was utterly betrayed.

This guy however broke up with the SIL because she had lied about being on the pill, so to have unprotected sex with her after that shows at best staggering naiveté and at worst a total disregard for the consequences.

It is completely different.

GhostShip · 10/08/2012 21:49

Yes but the man is this case deliberately slept with her and insisted she took contraception. So how is that different?

GhostShip · 10/08/2012 21:50

And I've made this point before but got shot down about it, people weren't willing to accept it in any circumstance or scenario. So can't win really.

MrMiyagi · 10/08/2012 21:50

I'm not saying that thread is exactly the same. The question was asked how a man could trick a woman into getting pregnant, and the answer is the same, lie about contraception.

Answer me honestly, would any woman who had been lied to about a condom (all that thread does is show it's perfectly possible) get a barrage of "you should have been on the pill"? Or would the man be called all sorts for tricking her?

bogeyface · 10/08/2012 21:51

Its different because he knew that she couldnt be trusted so rather than doing the one thing he could do, ie; use a condom, he slept with her and trusted that she would take a pill despite her lying about it in the past.

In the other thread the OP thought she could trust her DH as he had never given her any reason to think she couldnt.

bogeyface · 10/08/2012 21:52

Actually, on the other thread there is quite a few posts saying that the OP should have made sure she was on the pill. She explained that as a couple they agreed to use condoms because she is BF, but was still told that she should have not assumed trust in her DH and should have been on the pill herself anyway, just in case.

WorraLiberty · 10/08/2012 21:52

You can't insist someone takes a MAP just because you regret not wearing a condom during sex.

As was proven by the birth of a baby.

If you don't want to create a life, you need to make sure you use contraception.

The married woman on the other thread did insist upon it and thought that's what happened.

It doesn't compare to a reckless reluctant father not putting a condom on when he's already split with the woman for trying to get pregnant by him without his knowledge.

bogeyface · 10/08/2012 21:54

I dont think anyone on here is saying what the SIL did is right, but we are saying that if he was so damn sure he didnt want a baby, to the point of dumping her, then he shouldnt have been so keen to go bareback.

He dumped her because she lied about being on the pill but then shagged her without a condom and was surprised when she got pg. But it is 100% her fault? Really?

GhostShip · 10/08/2012 21:54

I accept there are differences, but in a hypothetical situation people wouldn't be saying it to the woman. It would be aw poor you and WHAT A BASTARD if not LEAVE THE BASTARD

WorraLiberty · 10/08/2012 21:54

Answer me honestly, would any woman who had been lied to about a condom (all that thread does is show it's perfectly possible) get a barrage of "you should have been on the pill"? Or would the man be called all sorts for tricking her?

I can answer that honestly hand on heart....

Yes

If she had dumped the guy for 'tricking' her before and then she slept with him again without protecting herself.

I'm absolutely sure she'd be called all the idiots under the sun

bogeyface · 10/08/2012 21:58

In this case the blame is 50/50, or possibly even 60 him and 40 her because he knew that she was trying to get pg and did it anyway.

In the other thread the OP insisted on contraception and thought it was being used, so it was 100% the blame of her "D"H who lied to her.

If a woman posted on here about coming off the pill without telling her OH then she would get roasted, and rightly so.

Birdsgottafly · 10/08/2012 22:00

Answer me honestly, would any woman who had been lied to about a condom (all that thread does is show it's perfectly possible) get a barrage of "you should have been on the pill"? Or would the man be called all sorts for tricking her?

I'm sure that the woman would get no support if she left the baby with the man and then complained about handing over cash and then called him for getting support off his parents, whilst she did nothing.

CouthyMow · 10/08/2012 22:01

Now, as a parent with care who received no maintenance for 13 years for DD (I do now though), I would have bitten my Ex's hand off if he said he was willing to provide the equivalent in what the CSA would order from him in PRACTICAL things like clothing, shoes, formula and nappies etc.

I wouldn't have cared LESS had it been like that, it still would have meant he was financially supporting his child, leaving my cash free to do things like buy the electric and food.

If he wants to ensure that the money is spent on the child, what better way to do it?

CouthyMow · 10/08/2012 22:03

But still, a Man's choice on whether to have a baby or not ends the moment he has unprotected sex. Up until that point, he has choices. After that, he has no control over what the woman does to HER body.

GhostShip · 10/08/2012 22:09

bogeyface I'm shocked you'd think in this situation the man could possibly be more to blame. I thought being a lying deviant would be worse than an idiot

bogeyface · 10/08/2012 22:11

She wasnt lying though, not at that point.

When he slept with her he knew that she wasnt on the pill. He knew that she wanted a baby. He knew she couldnt be trusted to keep her word.

He slept with her anyway, so yes I do think that actually, at that point he was more to blame than her.

bogeyface · 10/08/2012 22:12

and "deviant"? Really?!

bogeyface · 10/08/2012 22:12

Sorry that should be "he slept with her anyway without a condom"

LineRunnerSpartanNaked · 10/08/2012 22:14

"lying deviant"

How terribly urbane.

GhostShip · 10/08/2012 22:21

She was deviant. Stopping your contraception in order to have a baby with someone who believes you to still be taking said contraception is being deviant. She then let's him believe she's taken the morning after pill. So that's that. But it isn't, because she gets pregnant. Tells him he can't see baby. Months after she decided she suddenly wants his money because she's finding it hard. If that isn't deviant don't know what is.

Well you're entitled to your opinion anyway, and yeah he was a friggin idiot to be so trusting but that doesn't mean he's at fault.

LineRunnerSpartanNaked · 10/08/2012 22:23

What's it like living in your world?

fruitpastille · 10/08/2012 22:23

It's completely irrelevant whose fault it was. There is always a risk of pregnancy no matter what form of contraception is used anyway. It is also irrelevant if the mother has her own separate income from parents etc. Legally and morally he is obliged to cough up regardless of whether she is a nice person. He should get a dna test and make sure there is some sort of record when he starts payment to make sure she doesn't try to back date any more amounts owed.

WorraLiberty · 10/08/2012 22:28

She is a deviant and a lying one at that

You'll get no argument from me there

But he knew that and still shagged her without a condom

If he was happy to do that, he should be happy to pay the consequence and that means stumping up maintenance to help pay for the care of the life he helped create.

It's not rocket science.

Socknickingpixie · 10/08/2012 22:32

couthymow for some people that sort of arangement can be used as a weapon and/or not depended on also its hard when trust is an issue.

my first maintainance arangement (actually court ordered but done so by consent) was for school transport and school dinners and uniforms plus £45 a month cash that i was obliged to use for sky tv) however in practise the transport was not only not paid but he was actually paid for providing it (company i handed over to him in exchange for agreement provided transport paid for by la at £55 a day), the school dinners were paid for 2 terms then left and left till i had to do it and was never reimbursed and he refused to provide more than 1 pair of trousers 1 shirt each school year if a pair got ripped or dc grew it was tough i once made the mistake of buying a pair of trousers after asking him for a month to do so,when i gave him the receipt he screamed at me refused to refund (they were £4) then used it as a excuse to refuse everything apart from the £45 cash) resulting in a so far 3 year long csa issue due to a army pension and variation process. (you may remember the very helpfull advice you gave me on the thread about it.)

the thing with this type of arangement is maintainance is not just about stuff its about the rp knowing exactly what they have coming in to budget effectivly its not about the nrp getting to decide what they feel the dc needs as thats down to the rp,its also not about the nrp just getting to buy the fun stuff its about making a contribution towards the dc's whole life inc the mundane stuff like housing and dreary bills.unless you have a very trusting relationship with the nrp its never going to work.

GhostShip · 10/08/2012 22:33

I'm not denying he's an idiot, and I'm not denying he now has responsibility

linerunner if that was to me could you please expand on that question? My world?